Notably, the police acted after 12,000 people signed a petition asking them to investigate. Lots of people, mostly women I'd say, are all on board with this. The reason why I say mostly women is that a huge number seem to think it is or ought to be illegal to say anything they deem offensive.

The GSS contains several dichotomous questions about whether or not proponents of various controversial belief systems should be permitted to publicly advocate said beliefs. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. The percentages, by sex, who say that those favoring military dictatorship, white supremacism, homosexuality, atheism, and anti-Western Islamism should be allowed to speak in public. Sample sizes are in the several thousands:

% allowed to speak

Militarist

Supremacist

Homosexualist

Atheist

Islamist

Men

68.6

66.4

83.7

80.1

47.2

Women

66.3

55.9

85.0

74.3

37.5

Except in the rather unsurprising case of strident homosexuals, women tend to express less support for free speech than men do, although the gender gaps are pretty modest.

Conjecturing about what this suggests regarding the validity of Mangan's point, it suggests he's more likely correct than not, specifically since this particular incident involves putative racism.

9 comments:

Women are inclined to obfuscate sexual realism because thus the fact that it is men who create civilization, sacrifice themselves for women's safety, produce resources and invest them in their spouses, while women are basically parasitic, is concealed. So women are on board with the perversity ("homosexual") agenda, which is indirect Feminist sex-denialist propaganda, but anything else is oh-so-scary-shut-it-down-and-focus-on-meeeee-instead.

Women are also more concerned about social consensus and harmony than men are. Homosexuality has become so socially normalized now that expressing any kind of opposition or even skepticism of it is seen as the 'controversial' thing to do. This isn't the case with the other four types of speech, which are still mostly seen as morally suspect.

But I find it disgraceful that David Cameron was allowed to show his face at such a rally.

Re homosexuality, its complicated. I live in Rockville, MD, which is about as 'progressive' as it gets -- the blue core of a blue state. A homosexual pair (dudes) with an adopted young boy moved in about three houses away. I don't see anyone inviting this group into the play circles with their own similar-aged kids -- people just aren't comfortable. Everyone I am sure is able to spout perfect rightthink lines on cue. Two very nearby families with a pair of young sons each were pro gay marriage before this couple moved in, but now that the rubber hits the road their actions betray them.

Women wouldn't be parasitic if men did not let them be parasitic. If you don't want to financially support a woman for the rest of your life, don't get married to one. If you don't like the fact that single mothers get welfare benefits, vote against welfare.

As for homosexuality, I don't see a homosexual agenda. Gays and lesbians have always existed and will continue to exist in the near future. The only difference is that in the past they would lie to the world and pretend to be straight. Such a tragedy happened to my classmate and her mother. My classmate's dad grew up in a conservative Christian family in a red state. He was gay but decided to suppress it, get married, have a child, and pass as a straight man in society. However, most people can't lie to the world 24/7 so eventually his wife found out and it led to their divorce. If we eradicate homophobia then gays and lesbians will have zero reason to lie to the rest of society. They will have zero reason to dupe straight people into marrying them.

I see tons of disapprovable 'facts' re homosexuality. For one thing, homosexuality is self evidently not healthy human functioning. It is an evolutionary mess-up at a minimum, and it has been a source of massive disease propagation in recent American history. That the left paints malfunction as healthy is a major distortion.

For another thing, the born-that-way concept is itself a major distortion. Some are strictly gay or straight, but a whole lot of people occupy a middle ground that the left lately denies exists. I can name a couple of dozen celebrities who have openly gone both ways, most of whom are living as straight these days. Mick Jagger and David Bowe are two really obvious examples just among male musicians. Practically every female starlet of the last generation can serve as an example also. The number of people self identifying as gay varies significantly by cohort and with fashion.

The victimology of gays (at least in the violent sense) is also largely made up, unless you mean gays creating victims by propagating AIDS. The one really major 'victim' of homophobia identified by the Cathedral, Matthew Sheppard, was evidentally a drugged dealer, killed in a deal gone bad by another gay guy.

And the transgender stuff is pure, unadulterated horseshit, consumable only by those who disbelieve in DNA (evidently rather a lot of people).

One of the more significant distortions of the Cathedral re homosexuality has been to deny the long historical link between homosexuality and pederasty. Indeed the first gay rights organization in America was NAMBLA, before they got kicked out for being awkward PR.

Given this long historical link between homosexuality and pederasty, exemplified in the Catholic church, entertainment industries, elite boys' schools here and in the UK, the cultures of Afghanistan and ancient Greece etc. etc., it is kinda obvious why even liberal parents don't want their sons watched by gay men.

Once I couldn't give a care about homosexuality one way or the other. But I really hate being lied to by the Cathedral.

I don't buy that people with gay leanings who have families are all miserable. It is surely a crapshoot, and I'm sure a lot of them fail. But its something a lot of them actually want.

There is a guy in my local church who was a cruiser in NY in the 1970s (russian roulette, baby!) who's been married (to a wife) for 30 years and they have several kids, mostly grown now. He seems to be more of an asset to society than he would be otherwise. Genetic in his case? Hard to say... his kids are all straight.

It's not about the homosexuals - it's about the spouses they deceive. I want to eradicate homophobia because I don't want to go through what my classmate's mother went through. I want to marry a straight man, not a gay man who duped me into thinking he's straight. Gays and lesbians should have full civil rights but they should also be legally liable for fraud if they dupe people into thinking they are straight.

Many men deceive women about a whole lot of things that should be more difficult for a woman who is paying attention to detect than homosexual desire. A little time in the bedroom would make it fairly obvious I would think, especially if the man isn't bisexual.

"A little time in the bedroom would make it fairly obvious I would think"

That's one reason I have been so suspicious of these guys that suddenly 'come out' after twenty-five years of marriage and three kids, while the wife is all bewildered. His equipment was evidently operating in a very heterosexual way to make those kiddies and presumably all the other times he was with his wife.

These men are evidently bisexual but that is a category that is not allowed to exist for men in our brave new world. So they announce they were 100% gay all along and the crowd goes wild, while the old wifey stands there speechless!